I have been taking photos on and off since the late 1960's. If it wasn't for the entry-level cameras out there, I'd never have been able to get into this. Product ranges like the Coolpix have a very important place. As you point out there used to be a clear difference, but that is much less so now.

I am always trying to reconcile myself to those who have cameras that are now considered as 'entry-level' and do more, at higher MP levels, longer and wider lenses, have a better DR and shoot at higher ISO's than cameras I used to think were clearly for professionals only. It sure is an interesting time....

well said bjrichus.
to think of what we used to achieve with manual focus, needle metering,200 ISO, 400 started to get grainy, shooting racing cars.......and to look at at a D3100 now.

Stand-alone P&S cameras are under pressure from cellphone cameras, but low end photography flourishes like never before. The biggest problem for P&S camera-makers is that cell phone cameras will soon enough have enough megapixels that there's almost nowhere they can go to keep the market vibrant. Why pay $200 for a P&S when you can shoot it for free with your cell phone and then pull it up in iPhoto, Picasa etc. and then crop it to meet your taste.

SLRs are a totally different story. For me, the significance is the enjoyable experience of looking through the lens and having instant control over the shot via the camera's controls, along with lenses that are much faster and smoother to use. DSLRs are a flat out more enjoyable experience, and I think the future of EVIL cameras rests on how well they can recreate that ergonomic experience, rather than whether they can technically take similar quality photos with a smaller camera. Let's face it. Squinting to see the lcd in daylight plain sucks, so I could care less that the Sony NEX 3 or 5 takes the same quality pic as dSLRs (FX obviously excepted). I'd rather use a heavier dSLR because I enjoy it more.

For this reason, it's going to be interesting to see whether Nikon and Canon take this into consideration with their EVIL entries.

casperwb said:
well said bjrichus.
to think of what we used to achieve with manual focus, needle metering,200 ISO, 400 started to get grainy, shooting racing cars.......and to look at at a D3100 now.

I still use my 1977 vintage Nikon FTn (works exactly as you describe - manual focus, needle metering,200 ISO, 400 started to get grainy), which makes me think that while we have come a damn long way since then, many of us are having old age blues about all these advances and stress too much over them!

Perhaps we should just take a less entrenched view this kind of thing and worry about the pictures?

I had an OM-1 & OM-10, and just thought they were great. 50mm lens, although I also had a Vivitar 24-48mm zoom that was really hot for wide angles. I did some great work with those cameras. I wouldn't mind using them again, except for the cost of film.

The biggest benefit of today's dSLR isn't the ISO range or that you can shoot in manual, AP, SP, P, or even A mode (heaven forbid :) ). It's that you can shoot an almost unlimited number of shots for "free" once you have the gear.

I had an OM-1 & OM-10, and just thought they were great. 50mm lens, although I also had a Vivitar 24-48mm zoom that was really hot for wide angles. I did some great work with those cameras. I wouldn't mind using them again, except for the cost of film.

The biggest benefit of today's dSLR isn't the ISO range or that you can shoot in manual, AP, SP, P, or even A mode (heaven forbid :) ). It's that you can shoot an almost unlimited number of shots for "free" once you have the gear.

I also have a collection of old and slowly degenerating film gear. When I was a kid, several family members were deeply into Pentax, Yashica, Bronica and the like. Only some of that gear has found its way to me.. :( Still, I am happy to move forward.

Ah yes - as for film vs digital costs, that is indeed one of the first things on the agenda for DSLR 101 courses at community or local technical colleges - or in most modern photography beginner books.

For my money, an over-emphasis on it encourages the machine gun approach, where the photographer closes down his/her brain and fires a dozen shots hoping to get "the one" keeper out of the other dross they capture. I kind of discourage that approach, but have used it myself when time was too short for me to set up a shot in advance. As I say, it "kind of" works, but not for every subject, every person, or every situation, especially if you are doing stuff OTHER than street/photojournalism. :)

(I'm not 'dissing' the street/journo crowd, just saying... it's only ONE way of shooting not THE only way, is all).